Boston Accident Lawyer Blog

You don't have to look far to see the terrible tragedies that occur every day as a result of motor vehicle accidents in Massachusetts.

This past Saturday (June 20 2009,) both a 3-year-old child and a man were killed when they were thrown from their sport utility vehicle in an accident on Interstate 95 in Attleboro, Mass. Shortly after 5:30 p.m on Saturday a green 1997 Ford Explorer, carrying four adults and two children, collided with a 1996 Chevrolet operated by a 19-year-old Pawtucket, R.I., woman in the center lane of I-95 between exits 2 and 3, according to a preliminary investigation conducted by Massachusetts State Police. The Explorer rolled over, fatally injuring the man and child and ejecting as many as three occupants, before coming to rest on the left lane of the three-lane highway. Rescue workers transported three adults and another juvenile to area hospitals with injuries. In addition to the two dead, a third person also suffered potentially life-threatening injuries, according to authorities. Ironically - and depending on who was responsible for this accident - the driver of the Chevrolet was not injured. While the crash remains under investigation with the assistance of the State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section and the State Police Crime Scene Services Section, no amount of investigation will bring back the dead from this tragedy, or console their families and loved ones.

This is a horrible story, made worse by the sight of children's toys strewn over the accident scene from the car carrying the 3 year-old, as broken as the human bodies that lay at the scene. If stories like this can serve to do any good at all, it will be to: 1) First and foremost, urge drivers to drive defensively and carefully; 2) Always wear seat belts; and 3) Never, ever text or become distracted with PDA's or cell phones (note: There is no evidence yet that cell phones, texting or PDA's were involved.) Those inviolable rules will help you prevent or avoid a motor vehicle accident tragedy of your own. However, there is one other message that such an incident can remind people of, and that is of the paramount importance, if you are the victim of a motor vehicle accident, of choosing the best motor vehicle accident attorney you possibly can. No lawyer can turn back time and prevent that which has already taken place. But the right personal injury lawyer can and will make sure that your legal right to financial compensation for what you have lost or suffered, is maximized to the fullest extent possible under Massachusetts law.

That is critically important. Not all lawyers are equally qualified in the area of Massachusetts personal injury and Massachusetts car accidents. The Law Offices of William D. Kickham And Associates has more than 20 years of experience in representing injured victims of car accidents. We can't turn back time for you, but we will make sure that if someone else's negligence has hurt you, they will pay the maximum allowed under Massachusetts auto accident law.

Drive Safely.

Timing is often an ironic thing. Less than 36 hours ago, on Saturday June 13, I opened this new personal injury law blog, with a post noting the growing – and deadly - problem of Massachusetts motor vehicle injuries caused by elderly drivers in this state. In that post, I made the argument that too many elderly drivers are on the road in Massachusetts, that many of such drivers are as dangerous and deadly as drunk drivers, and I proposed tough new laws to test and monitor every two years, all drivers between the ages of 79 and 85, and to then draw the line at age 85: No one aged 85 or older in Massachusetts should be issued drivers licenses.

Later that same day, tragically, a 4 year-old preschool girl by the name of Diya Patel was struck by an 89 year-old driver while in a crosswalk on Route 138 in Stoughton, Massachusetts. Mortally injured, bystanders including a nurse did all they could to help, as did paramedics who arrived as fast as they could. Clinging to life, the girl was airlifted to Tufts Medical Center in Boston, as her family prayed and hoped for her survival. Diya Patel died yesterday, Sunday. Her family, including her grandfather Govind Patel, who watched the preschooler run down and tossed 50 feet by the 89 year-old driver of the Toyota Camry that struck her, is beyond devastation.

“My granddaughter, very, very loved,” said Patel, who lives with his grandchildren in a modest apartment on Bennett Drive in Stoughton. “Very, very loved. Very, very sad.” The dead child’s father, Sanjay Patel, was too overcome with emotion to speak.

Meanwhile, three miles away, the woman (unnamed as yet by representatives from the Norfolk County District Attorney’s office) who was reportedly driving the car that killed this young girl , answered reporters at the door of her apartment in the Orchard Cove Continuing Care Retirement Community, by saying the following: “I’m refusing to say anything to any paper,” said the woman. “I have no . . . report.” Reporters, including the Boston Herald, know the woman’s name, but are withholding her identity until either the District Attorney’s office, or state authorities, release the name. Why they have not yet released it, is unclear as of the date and time of this post (Monday, June 15, 2009 at 12:50 AM EDT.)

When is the madness of state legislative inaction on this issue going to end? What will it take? To listen to the anemic, politically-calculated reactions of most legislators and state officials on this issue, is pathetic (God forbid they take a principled stand and alienate their senior voters.) One state legislator who has stood up with a proposal for action – a proposal I consider far too modest – is state Sen. Brian A. Joyce (D-Milton,) whose district, also ironically, includes the town of Stoughton where this incident occurred. His proposal would require “periodic” road testing for drivers over age 85 ("periodic" is not defined in his proposal, which would continue to allow persons over age 85 to drive.) That is far too weak and anemic a "response" to the threat this growing problem poses. To his credit, Joyce has acknowledged his proposal is “Too modest.”

And while we’re on that point, so was my own proposal, outlined in my previous post on this subject. That proposal was to require visual and motor skill road testing every two years of all Massachusetts drivers between the ages of 79-85. I now rescind that proposal, as also being too modest. At a minimum, all drivers seeking to obtain or renew a Massachusetts driver’s license, should be required to appear in person at a Registry of Motor Vehicles location to be tested for visual and motor skill road testing every year. I stand by my earlier proposal to outright ban Massachusetts drivers licenses to anyone in this state age 85 or older. I also reserve the right to add additional, stringent conditions to this proposal, as this issue develops.

On June 2, a 93-year-old man drove his car into a Wal-Mart in Danvers, injuring a mother and her 1-year-old baby. The next day, a 73-year-old Middleboro woman lost control of her minivan and plowed into a crowd gathered at a Vietnam War memorial in Plymouth, sending seven bystanders to the hospital. On June 5, an 84-year-old man slammed into a Somerset storefront. The response from state officials (the ones who count, who can make something happen if they really want to? Tepid. Muffled comments about 'addressing the matter.'

Now a 4 year-old girl who was the light of her family’s life, lies in death – a death that never should have happened. A death that was entirely preventable - had state officials woken up earlier and grown a backbone over this issue. In my opening post to this new blog on Saturday June 13, I asked the rhetorical question, “Would the person who cares to be maimed or killed next on the road, or see a loved one seriously injured or killed, please raise their hand?”

Are you listening, Beacon Hill? Act -- forcefully, and now. Or perhaps you or your loved one could be next.

Hello to my new readers! This site is a brand new blog connected to my law practice, www.kickhamlegal.com, and this post today is my ‘inaugural post,’ to open this blog. For almost a year now, I’ve already had a criminal law blog,and I’ve received a lot of positive feedback from my readers of that blog. It’s my hope that this new blog, dealing with only the legalities of personal injury actions in Massachusetts, and the legal rights of injury victims to recover damages for injuries they’ve suffered due to another person’s negligence, will bring my readers equally interesting and useful information.

So, let’s get to it: My first post on the subject of personal injury law in Massachusetts has to do with a fast-growing problem in this state, and across the nation: Elderly drivers and the often devastating injuries they (however unintentionally) cause in motor vehicle accidents. By the way, “elderly,” in the context of this post, means anyone 79 or older. (Sorry to any readers 79 or older, but a rose by any other name…)

Recently in Massachusetts, seven people were injured in Plymouth after a car driven by a 73-year-old woman jumped a curb and ran into a crowd gathered at a war memorial. It was the woman's third accident since turning 70, authorities said. In Danvers, a 93-year-old man drove his car into the entrance of a Wal-Mart, injuring six people, after he mistook the gas pedal for the brake. Such Massachusetts car accidents can cause devastating injuries, including death. In my opinion as a Massachusetts car accident attorney, an elderly driver over the age of 85 poses just as deadly a threat when operating a motor vehicle upon the public roads, as does a drunk driver. That may sound severe, but it’s true. Road safety analysts predict that by 2030, when all baby boomers are at least 65, they will be responsible for 25% of all fatal crashes. In 2005, 11% of fatal crashes involved drivers that old.

Massachusetts drivers must renew their licenses every five years, but are required to take an eye test only every 10 years. No particular or special testing at all is required for elderly drivers. That’s ridiculous – and deadly. Researchers say that drivers begin to pose a greater risk around age 70, with crash-rates increasing markedly after age 80. Most road-safety advocates agree that states like Massachusetts are not doing enough to deal with this problem, and urge at the very least, a requirement for more frequent in-person examinations for drivers over age 79. "There's a political reluctance to even address the issue, but we can't continue to ignore this," said Peter Kissinger, president of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. "We clearly know that as we age, our functional performance and cognitive abilities decline."

That’s obvious, and in a few states, doctors are legally obligated to report when patients' medical conditions pose a driving danger, but not in Massachusetts: Here, it is voluntary. The result? Almost all doctors don’t report anything to anyone about an elderly patient that they think might pose a safety risk when driving. The reason? Most doctors don’t want to, essentially, “rat” on their patient, or disturb the doctor-patient privilege. We logically require doctors to report other kinds of suspected risks to public safety authorities, such as child abuse or overt mental health issues a patient may have that could clearly pose a threat to the public. But if a doctor thinks his elderly patient may not be able to safely operate two tons of steel and glass on the public roads? “Don’t ask; Don’t tell” is the norm. As ridiculous as that is, it’s the truth.

Another reason no action has been taken? Politics. Advocates for the elderly have sharply opposed age-based oversight as “discriminatory,” and noted that the state prohibits age discrimination in licensing. But with more seniors on the road than ever before - people over 65 will make up 25 percent of all drivers by 2025, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - calls are growing for more aggressive regulation. "The time is ripe for change," said Rachel Kaprielian, Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles. While Governor Deval Patrick last week threw his support behind legislation that would require drivers 85 and older to pass a road test and eye test every five years to have their licenses renewed, that is a rather weak response, in my view. But at least it’s a start.

In my view as a Massachusetts car accident attorney, something needs to be done about this problem, and fast. Too many auto accidents, serious injuries and even fatalities are resulting due to inaction in this area. In my view as a personal injury lawyer who litigates cases every day involving serious injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents, persons between the age of 79 and 85 should be required to pass vision and motor skills tests administered by the RMV every two years in order to maintain their drivers licenses. After reaching the age of 85, I don’t believe people should be issued Massachusetts drivers licenses. The risk of serious injury and death, to both the elderly driver and innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents, is simply too great.

And for those who disagree, I have a question: Would the person who cares to be maimed or killed next on the road, or see a loved one seriously injured or killed, please raise their hand?

Massachusetts public safety officials are fond of slogans: “Don’t Drink and Drive – Stay Alive”; Click It or Ticket” (Seat belts.) My solution: “It’s the law: If you’re over 85, you can’t drive.”